|
Discrimination on grounds of religion and belief is wrong. Yet till 2nd December 2003, there was no specific legislation in the UK (with the exception of fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland) that outlawed it.
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 changed that. Workers in Great Britain can now challenge discrimination in this area.
What protection does the legislation give me?
The new regulations outlaw:
• Direct discrimination - treating people worse than others on the basis of religion or belief (or instructing someone else to behave in this way). There is no defence available to an employer to a claim of direct discrimination. There are however exemptions in relation to genuine occupational requirements (see later).
• Indirect discrimination - applying a provision, criterion or practice (whether intentionally or not) which disadvantages people of a particular religion or belief, unless it can be justified.
To be able to justify it, employers have to show there is a real business need for the practice.
• Harassment on the grounds of religion or belief. Harassment is defined as subjecting someone to unwanted conduct that violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The harassment does not have to be intentional to be caught by the regulations - for instance it can be jokes or banter that someone finds Victimisation - treating people worse because they made \nor intend to make an allegation about discrimination on the grounds of religion \nor belief, or because they have given or intend to give evidence under the \nregulations. It does not matter if the allegations turn out not to be true, \nproviding they were made in good faith.
Who does the law protect?
The legislation applies to all workers, including contract and agency workers, office holders, the police, barristers and members of the armed forces. \nIt extends to partnerships, trade organisations (including trade unions), qualifications bodies, providers of vocational training, employment agencies and institutes of further and higher education.The regulations extend to people who are discriminated against because someone thinks they practice a certain religion or have a certain belief, even if they do not. They also protect people who have friends or family who practice a certain religion or hold a certain belief.
Where do the regulations apply?
They apply to those working wholly or partly in Great Britain, as well as those who work outside it as long as the employer’s place of business is in Britain and the work is for the purpose of that business.The worker must ordinarily be resident in Britain when he or she applies for the job or at any time during their employment.The new regulations apply in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland already has fair employment legislation that covers these grounds.
What do they cover?
The 2003 Regulations defined religion or belief as “any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". However legislative changes has changed the definition to by removing the word “similar".
• Victimisation - treating people worse because they made or intend to make an allegation about discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, or because they have given or intend to give evidence under the regulations. It does not matter if the allegations turn out not to be true, providing they were made in good faith.
Who does the law protect?
The legislation applies to all workers, including contract and agency workers, office holders, the police, barristers and members of the armed forces. It extends to partnerships, trade organisations (including trade unions), qualifications bodies, providers of vocational training, employment agencies and institutes of further and higher education.
The regulations extend to people who are discriminated against because someone thinks they practice a certain religion or have a certain belief, even if they do not. They also protect people who have friends or family who practice a certain religion or hold a certain belief.
Where do the regulations apply?
They apply to those working wholly or partly in Great Britain, as well as those who work outside it as long as the employer’s place of business is in Britain and the work is for the purpose of that business.
The worker must ordinarily be resident in Britain when he or she applies for the job or at any time during their employment.
The new regulations apply in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland already has fair employment legislation that covers these grounds.
What do they cover?
The 2003 Regulations defined religion or belief as “any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief”. However legislative changes has changed the definition to by removing the word “similar” \n(section 77 Equality Act 2006). The change took place on the 30 April 2007. This \nchange makes it clearer that being of no religion or belief is covered. The \nchange also widens the scope of philosophical belief, making it possible that \nemployees who adhere to a shared philosophical belief system, such as animal \nrights activism or a political ideology may also be protected from workplace \ndiscrimination. \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>Would the legislation protect someone who is a member or supporter \nof a political Party?\u003c/strong\>\u003cbr\> \u003cbr\>The short answer is that no one is \nsure. Political activists – including members of the British Nationalist Party \n(BNP) - could bring religious discrimination claims in the workplace. \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Previously this was not the case. Mr Baggs brought a religious \ndiscrimination claim against a medical practice that refused to interview him on \ngrounds of BNP membership. His lawyers claimed that he was entitled to \nprotection under religious discrimination laws because his membership of the BNP \namounted to a \u003cem\>“similar philosophical belief”\u003c/em\> to a religion or other \nreligious belief. \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>However, the claim was dismissed after the employment tribunal ruled that \nthe word \u003cem\>“similar”\u003c/em\> meant that the philosophical belief in question must \nbe similar in nature to a religious belief and that membership of the BNP did \nnot meet this test. \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>But according to Cath Thorpe, an employment partner at Reynolds Porter \nChamberlain: \u003cem\>“Under the amended regulations, the Baggs case may well have \nbeen decided differently.” \u003c/em\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Other lawyers also say that the amendment could extend to cover those with \nother beliefs. \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Audrey Williams, an employment expert at Eversheds, said: \u003cem\>“it is \npossible that due to the changes, people who adhere to any shared, philosophical \nbelief system such as animal rights activism or Marxism could also be protected \nfrom workplace discrimination.” ",1] ); //--> (section 77 Equality Act 2006). The change took place on the 30 April 2007. This change makes it clearer that being of no religion or belief is covered. The change also widens the scope of philosophical belief, making it possible that employees who adhere to a shared philosophical belief system, such as animal rights activism or a political ideology may also be protected from workplace discrimination.
Would the legislation protect someone who is a member or supporter of a political Party?
The short answer is that no one is sure. Political activists – including members of the British Nationalist Party (BNP) - could bring religious discrimination claims in the workplace.
Previously this was not the case. Mr Baggs brought a religious discrimination claim against a medical practice that refused to interview him on grounds of BNP membership. His lawyers claimed that he was entitled to protection under religious discrimination laws because his membership of the BNP amounted to a “similar philosophical belief” to a religion or other religious belief.
However, the claim was dismissed after the employment tribunal ruled that the word “similar” meant that the philosophical belief in question must be similar in nature to a religious belief and that membership of the BNP did not meet this test.
But according to Cath Thorpe, an employment partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain: “Under the amended regulations, the Baggs case may well have been decided differently.”
Other lawyers also say that the amendment could extend to cover those with other beliefs.
Audrey Williams, an employment expert at Eversheds, said: “it is possible that due to the changes, people who adhere to any shared, philosophical belief system such as animal rights activism or Marxism could also be protected from workplace discrimination.” \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>In discussing this amendment in the House of Lords, baroness Turner of \nCamden, suggested that 'philosophical belief' should be interpreted in line with \ncase law at the ECHR and that the beliefs intended to be protected are those \nthat amount to \u003cem\>"a world view or life stance".\u003c/em\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What does the law apply to?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The regulations provide protection throughout the employment relationship, \nand apply to both prospective and existing workers. They also apply after the \nemployment relationship has ended if the discrimination arises out of and is \nclosely connected with the employment relationship.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>They take effect at the recruitment stage and apply to terms and conditions \nof employment (including benefits such as pensions), pay, promotions, transfers, \nopportunities for training and dismissal and post-termination discrimination \nsuch as the conduct of appeals or letters of reference.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What do the regulations exclude?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The regulations allow for a number of exceptions to the principle that \npeople should not be discriminated against because of their religion or \nbelief:\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>• Genuine occupational requirement (GOR)\u003cbr\>• The religious organisations' \ngenuine occupational requirement\u003cbr\>• Positive action\u003cbr\>• Protection of Sikhs \non construction sites\u003cbr\>• National security\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What is a genuine occupational requirement (GOR)?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Employers can rely on the general GOR as a defence to claims of direct and \nindirect discrimination, as long as they satisfy the following test:\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>• That subscribing to a particular religion or belief is a genuine and \ndecisive requirement for the job.\u003cbr\>• That it is proportionate to apply that \nrequirement in this particular case.\u003cbr\>• That the person either does not meet \nthe requirement to be of a particular religion or belief, or the employer is not \nsatisfied that they do and it is reasonable in all the circumstances for them to \nreach that conclusion.",1] ); //-->
In discussing this amendment in the House of Lords, baroness Turner of Camden, suggested that 'philosophical belief' should be interpreted in line with case law at the ECHR and that the beliefs intended to be protected are those that amount to "a world view or life stance".
What does the law apply to?
The regulations provide protection throughout the employment relationship, and apply to both prospective and existing workers. They also apply after the employment relationship has ended if the discrimination arises out of and is closely connected with the employment relationship.
They take effect at the recruitment stage and apply to terms and conditions of employment (including benefits such as pensions), pay, promotions, transfers, opportunities for training and dismissal and post-termination discrimination such as the conduct of appeals or letters of reference.
What do the regulations exclude?
The regulations allow for a number of exceptions to the principle that people should not be discriminated against because of their religion or belief:
• Genuine occupational requirement (GOR)
• The religious organisations' genuine occupational requirement
• Positive action
• Protection of Sikhs on construction sites
• National security
What is a genuine occupational requirement (GOR)?
Employers can rely on the general GOR as a defence to claims of direct and indirect discrimination, as long as they satisfy the following test:
• That subscribing to a particular religion or belief is a genuine and decisive requirement for the job.
• That it is proportionate to apply that requirement in this particular case.
• That the person either does not meet the requirement to be of a particular religion or belief, or the employer is not satisfied that they do and it is reasonable in all the circumstances for them to reach that conclusion.\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>This exception does not require employers to show that their business is \nbased on a particular religion or belief. They just have to show that being of a \nparticular religion or belief is a genuine requirement for the job - for \ninstance a hospital wishing to recruit a chaplain to minister to patients of a \nparticular faith.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The GOR exemption is only likely to apply to a very few jobs and the courts \nand tribunals will narrowly construe it.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>How is the GOR exception applied to religious \norganisations?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Some organisations - like faith schools - are founded on an ethos based on \na religion or belief. Where employers can show that is the case, the test is \nvery similar to the general GOR, but slightly wider in that subscribing to the \nreligion need not be a decisive requirement for the job. So it might, for \nexample, allow faith-based organisations to insist that the workers who actually \ncarry out the roles of caring for peopleÂ’s spiritual needs (or whatever the work \nof the organisation involves) have that religion or belief.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What positive action can employers take?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cbr\>Employers are allowed to take positive action in favour of members of a \nparticular religion or belief, where it seems a reasonable thing to do to \ncompensate for past disadvantages that they may have faced.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>They can provide training that would fit them for particular work, or \nencourage them to take advantage of opportunities for doing particular \nwork.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What protection do Sikhs have?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The legislation states that if an employer requires a Sikh to wear a safety \nhelmet while on a construction site that would amount to indirect discrimination \nthat can never be justified. But the clause only applies to construction sites - \nif a turbaned Sikh were to try to enforce this provision in other circumstances, \nhe would be unlikely to succeed.",1] ); //-->
This exception does not require employers to show that their business is based on a particular religion or belief. They just have to show that being of a particular religion or belief is a genuine requirement for the job - for instance a hospital wishing to recruit a chaplain to minister to patients of a particular faith.
The GOR exemption is only likely to apply to a very few jobs and the courts and tribunals will narrowly construe it.
How is the GOR exception applied to religious organisations?
Some organisations - like faith schools - are founded on an ethos based on a religion or belief. Where employers can show that is the case, the test is very similar to the general GOR, but slightly wider in that subscribing to the religion need not be a decisive requirement for the job. So it might, for example, allow faith-based organisations to insist that the workers who actually carry out the roles of caring for people’s spiritual needs (or whatever the work of the organisation involves) have that religion or belief.
What positive action can employers take?
Employers are allowed to take positive action in favour of members of a particular religion or belief, where it seems a reasonable thing to do to compensate for past disadvantages that they may have faced.
They can provide training that would fit them for particular work, or encourage them to take advantage of opportunities for doing particular work.
What protection do Sikhs have?
The legislation states that if an employer requires a Sikh to wear a safety helmet while on a construction site that would amount to indirect discrimination that can never be justified. But the clause only applies to construction sites - if a turbaned Sikh were to try to enforce this provision in other circumstances, he would be unlikely to succeed.\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Under the new regulations, it may also be indirectly discriminatory to \nimpose, say, a safety helmet requirement on people who practise other religions \nwhich required special head wear. However, employers might well be able to \njustify it on health and safety grounds.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What is the national security exception?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Basically, no act is unlawful if it is done to safeguard national \nsecurity.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>Who is liable under the regulations?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cbr\>Employers are liable for the acts of their employees, whether or not \nthey knew or approved of them.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>They are also liable for acts done by anyone else acting on their behalf or \nwith their authority.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>They are not likely to be liable, however, for acts by third parties, such \nas pupils in school who are harassing a teacher.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Employers have a defence to a claim to anything done by an employee if they \ncan show that they took all ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent the behaviour from \nhappening.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>For instance, the employer may be able to show that he or she has a policy \nthat deals with discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, that the \npolicy is actively implemented, that staff receive regular training and possibly \neven that workers have been disciplined in the past for unacceptable \nbehaviour.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>Can employers impose a dress code?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Dress codes at work may give rise to claims of unlawful indirect \ndiscrimination. Employers cannot, however, impose a code if it seems to \ndiscriminate against someone on the grounds of their religion or belief, unless \nthey can justify the requirement.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>If the employer can show that the refusal is reasonably necessary for the \nbusiness on health and safety grounds, then the refusal will be justifiable. But \nnote the exception about Sikhs on construction sites.",1] ); //-->
Under the new regulations, it may also be indirectly discriminatory to impose, say, a safety helmet requirement on people who practise other religions which required special head wear. However, employers might well be able to justify it on health and safety grounds.
What is the national security exception?
Basically, no act is unlawful if it is done to safeguard national security.
Who is liable under the regulations?
Employers are liable for the acts of their employees, whether or not they knew or approved of them.
They are also liable for acts done by anyone else acting on their behalf or with their authority.
They are not likely to be liable, however, for acts by third parties, such as pupils in school who are harassing a teacher.
Employers have a defence to a claim to anything done by an employee if they can show that they took all ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent the behaviour from happening.
For instance, the employer may be able to show that he or she has a policy that deals with discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, that the policy is actively implemented, that staff receive regular training and possibly even that workers have been disciplined in the past for unacceptable behaviour.
Can employers impose a dress code?
Dress codes at work may give rise to claims of unlawful indirect discrimination. Employers cannot, however, impose a code if it seems to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their religion or belief, unless they can justify the requirement.
If the employer can show that the refusal is reasonably necessary for the business on health and safety grounds, then the refusal will be justifiable. But note the exception about Sikhs on construction sites.\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>In general, it is good practice for employers to allow staff to wear \nclothing that reflects their religious convictions.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>Do employers have to allow observance of religious \nholidays?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cbr\>If a worker wants to take a day off in observance of a religious \nholiday or festival, employers should try to accommodate this as long as the \nrequest does not interfere with the smooth running of the business. Otherwise, a \nrefusal may amount to unjustified indirect discrimination.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>All organisations (big and small) should have clear procedures for handling \nleave requests, which should be applied equally to all staff. For their part, \nstaff should give as much notice as possible of a holiday request and be aware \nthat the employer may not always be able to accommodate it.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>Do employers have to provide prayer facilities?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>There is no explicit requirement under the regulations to provide \nfacilities, such as a prayer room, for workers who want to practise their \nreligion.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>However, if employees ask for a quiet place in which to pray and the \npremises can accommodate the request without adversely impacting on the business \nor other staff, then it is hard to see how a refusal could be justified.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>There may also be issues about the time that workers take in order to \npractise their religion. However, if the time off to practice the religion is \nrestricted to the normal tea, coffee and smoking breaks taken by others, then \nthe workers are not being treated any more favourably than anyone else is in the \nworkplace.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>What about catering for special dietary \nrequirements?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Many religions involve specific dietary requirements.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>If the employer provides a canteen at work, the menu should reflect the \ndietary needs of the staff.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n",1] ); //-->
In general, it is good practice for employers to allow staff to wear clothing that reflects their religious convictions.
Do employers have to allow observance of religious holidays?
If a worker wants to take a day off in observance of a religious holiday or festival, employers should try to accommodate this as long as the request does not interfere with the smooth running of the business. Otherwise, a refusal may amount to unjustified indirect discrimination.
All organisations (big and small) should have clear procedures for handling leave requests, which should be applied equally to all staff. For their part, staff should give as much notice as possible of a holiday request and be aware that the employer may not always be able to accommodate it.
Do employers have to provide prayer facilities?
There is no explicit requirement under the regulations to provide facilities, such as a prayer room, for workers who want to practise their religion.
However, if employees ask for a quiet place in which to pray and the premises can accommodate the request without adversely impacting on the business or other staff, then it is hard to see how a refusal could be justified.
There may also be issues about the time that workers take in order to practise their religion. However, if the time off to practice the religion is restricted to the normal tea, coffee and smoking breaks taken by others, then the workers are not being treated any more favourably than anyone else is in the workplace.
What about catering for special dietary requirements?
Many religions involve specific dietary requirements.
If the employer provides a canteen at work, the menu should reflect the dietary needs of the staff.
The same principle applies to work-related meetings and social \nactivities.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>How do workers enforce their rights?\u003c/strong\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Although most issues should be resolved in the workplace, there are times \nwhen this is not possible.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The Regulations impose strict time limits throughout the procedure for \nbringing a case for religious discrimination. Good cases can be lost before they \nstart through hesitation or delay.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>If someone suspects they have been or are being discriminated on religious \ngrounds they must take advice immediately, contact their union as soon as \npossible and raise a grievance under the statutory procedure. From October 2004, \nunless there are special circumstances (e.g. threats or continuing harassment by \nthe employer) the employee must write to the employer raising a grievance and \nwait for 28 days before bringing a discrimination claim to an employment \ntribunal.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>This is even where the complaint relates to disciplinary action short of \ndismissal or another grievance. If a grievance is not raised the Tribunal will \nnot have jurisdiction to consider the claim.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The time limit for making a claim for religious discrimination to the \nemployment tribunal is three months from the act of discrimination. This time \nlimit is extended by three months to allow the statutory grievance procedure to \ntake place provided a grievance has been raised within three months of the act \nof discrimination.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>A discriminatory act may extend over a period of time so that it may be a \ncontinuing act if it takes the form of some policy; rule or practice in \naccordance with which the employer takes decisions. In these circumstances the \nthree-month period runs from the end of the continuing act. Tribunals do have \ndiscretion to allow late claims to proceed, but it is not safe to assume that \nthis discretion will be exercised.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>The questionnaire is normally sent to the employer before tribunal \nproceedings start. If so, it must be sent within three months of the facts \ncomplained of.",1] ); //-->
The same principle applies to work-related meetings and social activities.
How do workers enforce their rights?
Although most issues should be resolved in the workplace, there are times when this is not possible.
The Regulations impose strict time limits throughout the procedure for bringing a case for religious discrimination. Good cases can be lost before they start through hesitation or delay.
If someone suspects they have been or are being discriminated on religious grounds they must take advice immediately, contact their union as soon as possible and raise a grievance under the statutory procedure. From October 2004, unless there are special circumstances (e.g. threats or continuing harassment by the employer) the employee must write to the employer raising a grievance and wait for 28 days before bringing a discrimination claim to an employment tribunal.
This is even where the complaint relates to disciplinary action short of dismissal or another grievance. If a grievance is not raised the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to consider the claim.
The time limit for making a claim for religious discrimination to the employment tribunal is three months from the act of discrimination. This time limit is extended by three months to allow the statutory grievance procedure to take place provided a grievance has been raised within three months of the act of discrimination.
A discriminatory act may extend over a period of time so that it may be a continuing act if it takes the form of some policy; rule or practice in accordance with which the employer takes decisions. In these circumstances the three-month period runs from the end of the continuing act. Tribunals do have discretion to allow late claims to proceed, but it is not safe to assume that this discretion will be exercised.
The questionnaire is normally sent to the employer before tribunal proceedings start. If so, it must be sent within three months of the facts complained of.\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Â \u003c/div\>\u003c/font\> \u003c/div\>\n",0] ); D(["ce"]); //-->
|
Discrimination on Belief
